Unfortunately unless we as citizens are dedicated (investing the time too coordinate and act) and educated (about the topics at hands, including the ones we do not care about) enough for anarchy we do need representatives.
If we are not ready for anarchism then we need a system with representatives. They do not have to be professionals and they could be temporary (e.g. max N years/mandate) or part time (e.g. max 10hrs/week) or whatever other rules we deem required.
If we are not ready for either then we leave a power vacuum that will be taken by whomever is more powerful, including those ready to use power in the most unethical ways, bribing, coercion, murder, etc.
So… even though 99.99% of politicians might be corrupt, maybe 99.999% even started uncorrupted (funnily enough not even a word in my browser dictionary) but the system itself in order to reach and hold power did corrupt them, the alternative is IMHO even worst.
That being said don’t ask me to point out a .00% of uncorrupted politicians. I do have some ideas but even there I didn’t do the background check necessary so I might be biased.
Finally why do I bother writing this? Well because I worry that the power vacuum can be created and then abused by political actors outside of democracies.
Anarchy doesn’t mean chaos, a lack of social order, Mad Max, or a power vacuum. Depending on which flavor of anarchism we’re talking about, political power is distributed among the population evenly.
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
I think he addressed that though. Anarchy requires knowledgable participation in small sections of the responsible governance that would normally go to representatives.
To put it in simple terms, people don’t need to know how to build bridges, but they need to understand they, as with every other person in the village, are each tasked with carrying one boulder to a piling in the river.
Unfortunately unless we as citizens are dedicated (investing the time too coordinate and act) and educated (about the topics at hands, including the ones we do not care about) enough for anarchy we do need representatives.
If we are not ready for anarchism then we need a system with representatives. They do not have to be professionals and they could be temporary (e.g. max N years/mandate) or part time (e.g. max 10hrs/week) or whatever other rules we deem required.
If we are not ready for either then we leave a power vacuum that will be taken by whomever is more powerful, including those ready to use power in the most unethical ways, bribing, coercion, murder, etc.
So… even though 99.99% of politicians might be corrupt, maybe 99.999% even started uncorrupted (funnily enough not even a word in my browser dictionary) but the system itself in order to reach and hold power did corrupt them, the alternative is IMHO even worst.
That being said don’t ask me to point out a .00% of uncorrupted politicians. I do have some ideas but even there I didn’t do the background check necessary so I might be biased.
Finally why do I bother writing this? Well because I worry that the power vacuum can be created and then abused by political actors outside of democracies.
Anarchy doesn’t mean chaos, a lack of social order, Mad Max, or a power vacuum. Depending on which flavor of anarchism we’re talking about, political power is distributed among the population evenly.
— Buckminster Fuller
I think he addressed that though. Anarchy requires knowledgable participation in small sections of the responsible governance that would normally go to representatives.
To put it in simple terms, people don’t need to know how to build bridges, but they need to understand they, as with every other person in the village, are each tasked with carrying one boulder to a piling in the river.